alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6081 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the requirement 

that the taxpayer’s basis in a building be reduced by the amount of 

the rehabilitation credit determined with respect to such building. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 13, 2018 

Mr. LAHOOD (for himself, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, and Mr. BLUMENAUER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate 

the requirement that the taxpayer’s basis in a building 

be reduced by the amount of the rehabilitation credit 

determined with respect to such building. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Historic Tax Credit 

5 Enhancement Act of 2018’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6081 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF REHABILITATION CREDIT BASIS 

2 ADJUSTMENT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 50(c) of the Internal Rev4 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following new paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(6) EXCEPTION FOR REHABILITATION CRED7 IT.—In the case of the rehabilitation credit, para8 graph (1) shall not apply.’’. 

9 (b) TREATMENT IN CASE OF CREDIT ALLOWED TO

10 LESSEE.—Section 50(d) of such Code is amended by add11 ing at the end the following: ‘‘In the case of the rehabilita12 tion credit, paragraph (5)(B) of the section 48(d) referred 

13 to in paragraph (5) of this subsection shall not apply.’’. 

14 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

16 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2  Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of GMS Capital Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10–Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George Metrakos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:  1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ George MetrakosGeorge Metrakos
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer  Dated: August 17, 2011
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

Program Evaluation Report

Document Number: 

OCAS-PER-019 

Effective Date: 5/18/2007 

Revision No. 0

The Effect of Additional Neutron Dose Data from the Savannah 

River Site Page 1 of 2 

Author: Signature on file Date: 5/18/2007 David Allen, Dose Reconstruction Team Leader 

Approval: Signature on file Date: 5/18/2007 J.W. Neton, Associate Director for Science 

Supersedes: None 

ISSUE 

AUTHORIZATION 

DATE 

EFFECTIVE 

DATE 

REV. 

NO. DESCRIPTION 

5/18/2007 5/18/2007 0 

New document to report the impact of 

additional neutron dose data received from 

the Savannah River Site. 

1.0 Description

Dosimetry records are requested from the Savannah River Site for each claim received from the 

Department of Labor with Savannah River employment. This data is used in reconstructing the 

individuals’ radiation dose. The Savannah River site notified NIOSH that additional data 

pertaining to neutron dosimetry was not sent for several claims. The additional data has since 

been received and added to the original dosimetry data. 

Previously completed claims were re-evaluated to determine the affect of this new data on the 

individual claims. This Program Evaluation Report (PER) was prepared to report the results of 

that evaluation. 

2.0 Evaluation

Additional neutron dose data received from the Savannah River Site made it necessary to 

evaluate some dose reconstructions that were already completed. Additional data was received 

for 17 claims for which a Dose Reconstruction had previously been completed. Of these, one 

had not yet been approved and we subsequently reworked with the new data. Most of the rest 

resulted in a Probability of Causation of greater than 50%. The four remaining claims were reevaluated as part of this PER. 
Effective Date: 5/18/2007 Revision No. 0 Document No. 

OCAS-PER-019 

Page 2 of 2 

 

3.0 Resolution/Corrective Action

The four previously completed claims with a PC less than 50% were re-evaluated using the 

additional neutron data received from the Savannah River Site. All four remained below 50% 

POC. An itemized list has been provided to DOL containing the final evaluation result for each 

of the 4 claims.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           8,303
<SECURITIES>                                     3,007
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,397
<ALLOWANCES>                                       964
<INVENTORY>                                     11,307
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,660
<PP&E>                                          37,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                     555
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 112,737
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,422
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           609
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   112,737
<SALES>                                        135,737
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,737
<CGS>                                           98,144
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   98,144
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,574
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,508
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,486
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,293
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,193
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,193
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02



</TABLE>
|                                                          |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|                                                     |   | Nine Months Ended |   | FISCAL YEAR |
|                                                     |   | October 1, 2016 |   | 2015 |   | 2014 |   | 2013 |   | 2012 |   | 2011 |
| EARNINGS                                                 |   |   |  |   |   |  |   |   |  |   |   |  |   |   |  |   |   |  |
| Earnings before income taxes and noncontrolling interest |   | $ | 651 |  |   | $ | 928 |  |   | $ | 1,068 |  |   | $ | 784 |  |   | $ | 1,005 |  |   | $ | 1,019 |  |
| Plus fixed charges:                                      |   |   |  |   |   |  |   |   |  |   |   |  |   |   |  |   |   |  |
| Interest expense (1)                                     |   | 119 |  |   | 103 |  |   | 85 |  |   | 81 |  |   | 73 |  |   | 70 |  |
| Rent interest factor (2)                                 |   | 11 |  |   | 15 |  |   | 17 |  |   | 12 |  |   | 15 |  |   | 15 |  |
| TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                                      |   | 130 |  |   | 118 |  |   | 102 |  |   | 93 |  |   | 88 |  |   | 85 |  |
| EARNINGS BEFORE INCOME TAXES AND FIXED CHARGES           |   | $ | 781 |  |   | $ | 1,046 |  |   | $ | 1,170 |  |   | $ | 877 |  |   | $ | 1,093 |  |   | $ | 1,104 |  |
| RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                       |   | 6.0 |  |   | 8.9 |  |   | 11.5 |  |   | 9.4 |  |   | 12.4 |  |   | 13.0 |  |

|     |                                                                                                                                                                 |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) | Interest expense consists of interest on indebtedness and amortization of debt issuance costs but excludes interest on liabilities for uncertain tax positions. |

|     |                                                                                            |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) | Approximately one-third of rental expense is deemed representative of the interest factor. |
Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support

Program Evaluation Report

Document Number: DCAS-PER-065 

Effective Date: 11/30/2015 

Revision No. 0 

Anaconda Page 1 of 2 

Author: Signature on file Date: 11/30/2015 Supersedes: None 

Dave Allen, HP Team Leader

Approval: Signature on file 

J.W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

Date: 11/30/2015 

 

RECORD OF ISSUE/REVISIONS

ISSUE EFFECTIVE REV. NO. DESCRIPTION

AUTHORIZATION DATE

DATE

New document to determine the effect of 

11/30/2015 11/30/2015 0 the revision to Appendix G (Anaconda) 

of Battelle-TBD-6000 on previously 

completed claims.

1.0 Description

Dose reconstructions for the claims from the Anaconda site are performed using 

Appendix G of Battelle-TBD-6000. Revision 0 of Appendix G was issued on 4/10/2007. 

Revision 1 of this TBD was issued on 8/19/2014 to incorporate changes made to BattelleTBD-6000. Prior to revision 0, ORAUT-OTIB-004 was used for some claims as an 

overestimating approach. This PER (DCAS-PER-065) evaluates the effect of revision 1 

on all previously completed claims. 

2.0 Issue Evaluation 

Revision 1 of the Appendix was issued to incorporate changes made to Battelle-TBD6000. Additional changes were made to make the dose estimate more consistent with 

existing techniques. As a result of the revision, external photon dose rates increased for 

all job categories in all years of operations. Since this increase in dose encompass all 

employees through all years, it was not necessary to itemize any other increases in dose

or further breakdown the time periods affected. 

3.0 Plan for Resolution or Corrective Action

In order to evaluate the effect of revision 1 of the Appendix on all previously completed 

claims, a search was conducted for all completed claims with employment at the 

Anaconda site that had a probability of causation (POC) of less than 50%. This search 

identified 10 claims. 
Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support

Program Evaluation Plan

Document Number: DCAS-PER-065

Effective Date: 11/30/2015 Revision No. 0 Page 2 of 2

A new dose estimate was performed for all 10 claims using revision 1 of the Appendix, 

as well as all other applicable approved dose reconstruction methods. The resulting 

probability of causation (POC) was below 45% for all 10 claims. 

NIOSH will provide the Department of Labor with the list of all claims evaluated under 

this PER. Since none would now result in a POC greater than 50%, NOSH will not

request the return of any of the claims.
Ex 99.3

Pursuant  to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  the  undersigned
certifies  that this periodic  report fully  complies with the  requirements  of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934  and  that
information contained in this periodic report fairly represents, in all material
respects,  the financial  condition  and results of operations of  Knightsbridge
Tankers Limited.


This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 and
not for any other purpose.


/s/ Tor Olav Troim
--------------------------
Tor Olav Troim
Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 12, 2003
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6044 

To preempt State data security vulnerability mandates and decryption 

requirements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2018 

Mr. TED LIEU of California (for himself, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. BISHOP of Michigan, and Ms. DELBENE) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To preempt State data security vulnerability mandates and 

decryption requirements. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ensuring National 

5 Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommuni6 cations Act of 2018’’ or the ‘‘ENCRYPT Act of 2018’’. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6044 IH

1 SEC. 2. PREEMPTION OF STATE DATA SECURITY VULNER2 ABILITY MANDATES AND DECRYPTION RE3 QUIREMENTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—A State or political subdivision of 

5 a State may not— 

6 (1) mandate or request that a manufacturer, 

7 developer, seller, or provider of covered products or 

8 services— 

9 (A) design or alter the security functions 

10 in its product or service to allow the surveil11 lance of any user of such product or service, or 

12 to allow the physical search of such product, by 

13 any agency or instrumentality of a State, a po14 litical subdivision of a State, or the United 

15 States; or 

16 (B) have the ability to decrypt or otherwise 

17 render intelligible information that is encrypted 

18 or otherwise rendered unintelligible using its 

19 product or service; or 

20 (2) prohibit the manufacture, sale or lease, of21 fering for sale or lease, or provision to the general 

22 public of a covered product or service because such 

23 product or service uses encryption or a similar secu24 rity function. 

25 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6044 IH

1 (1) COVERED PRODUCT OR SERVICE.—The 

2 term ‘‘covered product or service’’ means any com3 puter hardware, computer software, electronic de4 vice, or online service that— 

5 (A) has traveled in interstate or foreign 

6 commerce or otherwise affects interstate or for7 eign commerce; and 

8 (B) is made available to the general public. 

9 (2) ONLINE SERVICE.—The term ‘‘online serv10 ice’’ means a service provided over the internet that 

11 makes available to users— 

12 (A) the ability to send or receive commu13 nications, such as emails, text messages, 

14 photos, and audio and video communications; 

15 (B) the ability to share data files with 

16 other users; or 

17 (C) remote computer processing or storage. 

18 (3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each of 

19 the several States, the District of Columbia, each 

20 commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United 

21 States, and each federally recognized Indian Tribe. 

Æ 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6047 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6047

To amend the Controlled Substances Act relating to controlled substance 
                               analogues.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2018

Mr. Thornberry introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Controlled Substances Act relating to controlled substance 
                               analogues.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Synthetic Abuse and Labeling of 
Toxic Substances Act of 2018'' or the ``SALTS Act''.

SEC. 2. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ANALOGUES.

    Section 203 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 813) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``A controlled'' and inserting ``(a) In 
        General.--A controlled''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Determination.--In determining whether a controlled substance 
analogue was intended for human consumption under subsection (a), the 
following factors may be considered, along with any other relevant 
factors:
            ``(1) The marketing, advertising, and labeling of the 
        substance.
            ``(2) The known efficacy or usefulness of the substance for 
        the marketed, advertised or labeled purpose.
            ``(3) The difference between the price at which the 
        substance is sold and the price at which the substance it is 
        purported to be or advertised as is normally sold.
            ``(4) The diversion of the substance from legitimate 
        channels and the clandestine importation, manufacture, or 
        distribution of the substance.
            ``(5) Whether the defendant knew or should have known the 
        substance was intended to be consumed by injection, inhalation, 
        ingestion, or any other immediate means.
            ``(6) Any controlled substance analogue that is 
        manufactured, formulated, sold, distributed, or marketed with 
        the intent to avoid the provisions of existing drug laws.
    ``(c) Limitation.--For purposes of this section, evidence that a 
substance was not marketed, advertised, or labeled for human 
consumption, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish that the 
substance was not intended for human consumption.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Teresa Dawn Harlan *v.*George Triplett, *Judge, Circuit Court of Randolph County, West Virginia*

(No. 13370)

Submitted June 19, 1973.

Decided July 3, 1973.

*819
      *John A. Cain,*for relator.

*Raymond L. Fair,*for respondent.

Haden, Justice:

The petitioner seeks the writ of prohibition against the Circuit Court of Randolph County attacking an order entered by that court on April 23, 1973 *pendente lite*in a divorce action in which petitioner is plaintiff and Richard Lee Harlan is defendant.

The order assailed awarded custody of two infant children to the petitioner, their mother, and directed the father to pay sixty dollars biweekly for the support of each child until the case is resolved by final order. The lower court also permitted the father to have the children with him from Friday night until Sunday night each week. Petitioner seeks this writ because the court’s order is silent and makes no award to her of temporary maintenance or alimony, attorney’s fees and court costs nor gives her the protection of an injunction restraining her husband from threatening her personal liberty. Although there is no record to support her demands, the petitioner asserts the trial court has exceeded its legitimate powers and the writ should issue as a matter of right. She says the court has no alternative but to grant her demands except for the matters of visitation and injunction; and in these matters, the court has abused its discretion.

We cannot agree with these contentions. West Virginia Code, Chapter 48, Article 2, Section 13, as amended in 1969, governs the granting of relief *pendente lite*to parties in divorce and annulment actions and extends to the court having jurisdiction substantial latitude and discretion regarding the matters contained therein. Such discretion is rarely reachable upon prohibition and the writ should issue only in clear cases of abuse. *Woodall v. Laurita,*156 W.Va. 707, 195 S.E.2d 717 (1973); *Brown v. Arnold,*125 W.Va. 824, 26 S.E.2d 238 (1943).

*820In a significant departure from the past, the Legislature has now provided that preliminary relief in civil actions seeking resolution of martial difficulties is available either to the wife or husband, as in the judgment of the court, factual presentations require. See, Note, 72 W.Va. L. Rev. 104,105 (1969-70).

In the case before us, there has been no factual showing which warrants a ruling that the trial court has exceeded its legitimate powers. All the matters of preliminary relief requested by petitioner herein — as respects maintenance, money to prosecute or defend the action, custody and support of minor children, prevention of restraints on the personal liberty of a party, preservation of the estate of a party, and security to abide the court’s order — are by *Code*1931, 48-2-13, as amended, within the sound discretion of the trial court.

The demurrer filed by the respondent trial court challenges the sufficiency of the petition and asserts the discretion accorded the court by the statute. For these reasons, the rule previously awarded is discharged, the respondent’s demurrer is sustained, and the writ is denied.

*Writ denied.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1595

DAVID BACH,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(4:13-cv-03503-MGL)

Submitted: October 2, 2014 Decided: October 22, 2014

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Bach, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Bach appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on his complaint. The district court referred this case 

to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 

(2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied 

and advised Bach that failure to file timely objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Bach

has waived appellate review by failing to file objections. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0116

_________________

PF2 LEASING, LLC,

 Intervenor and Appellant,

 vs.

JIM GALIPEAU, 

 Receiver and Appellee.

O R D E R

_________________

Upon consideration of Intervenor and Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s reply brief shall be filed on or before

August 17, 2021. 

No further extensions will be granted. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 23 2021

07/23/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0116